Jump to content

Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List


diecastbg

Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List  

4719 members have voted

  1. 1. Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List



Recommended Posts

Avro Arrow MkII, pretty please?

 

The US got our government to kill this program off so we could buy some shitty missiles and F-101 Voodoo's instead. Step above anything Russia or USA had in the late50's/early 60's. 60,000+ lbs of thrust, side looking radar, retractable missile bays, Mach 3, 70,000ft, all that jazz. Not the MkI though, those just had some Pratt & Whitney J75's for testing purposes. This thing and the TSR.2 could have been world-beaters. Also, Space Shuttle had alot of roots in this, so thank the designers of this plane.

 

arrow.jpg

arrow2.jpg

arrow9.jpg

arrow8.jpg


Edited by Zakatak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Avro Arrow MkII, pretty please?

 

The US got our government to kill this program off so we could buy some shitty missiles and F-101 Voodoo's instead.

 

 

Don't get too far ahead of yourself there. The technology onboard the arrow was not competitive, engines aside - and it was a very expensive program to field as well. It needed killing. And side looking radar and retractable missile bays? Thrust higher than what engines made in the 80's could safely achieve? Highly unlikely.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it had side-looking radar and missile bays that are not unlike the F-22/F-35. Orenda Iroquios engines produced 30,000lbs of thrust on afterburner, the Arrow MkII has 2 of them. If Diefenbaker did not cancel it, it wouldn't have been matched as an interceptor until the MiG-25 Foxbat (by which time it would have gotten several upgrades).

 

EDIT: Oh, and forgot, it was the first to use fly-by-wire, which wasn't repeated until the Concorde (and then F-16)


Edited by Zakatak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These hunter - arrow etc speculations and wishes are , sorry to remind, out of the realm of DCS. They are totally in the spirit of Strike Fighters though.

.

 

i7 880 | HD 7870 | 8 Gb DDR3 1600 | ECS P55H-A | OCZ Vertex 2 180 | Intel 330 180 | WD 500 AAKS | 2x WD 2T Green | Enermax Liberty 620 | CH Combatstick & Throttle | TrackIR 3 | HP ZR24W | Windows 7 x64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it had side-looking radar and missile bays that are not unlike the F-22/F-35. Orenda Iroquios engines produced 30,000lbs of thrust on afterburner, the Arrow MkII has 2 of them. If Diefenbaker did not cancel it, it wouldn't have been matched as an interceptor until the MiG-25 Foxbat (by which time it would have gotten several upgrades).

 

That's plenty of hype. The Iroquois engines weren't fitted to any of the aircraft that actually flew, ever.m It is also an engine rated at 25000lbf, not 30000 - that was 'reported' thrust, whatever that meant, and even so it was similar in TWR to engines that came around at the same time - 5:1, where the USAF had a 4:1 requirement, IIRC.

 

By comparison, much later engines such as the F-15's are 8:1 TWR engines, despite having 'the same thrust'.

 

The Iroquois was advanced for it's time, but we're talking about a pretty short time-frame. It wasn't magical.

 

No side-looking radar was used, and most of the air to air armament development was canceled. The bay was a must for high altitude and high speed travel, and isn't anything new or strange.

 

EDIT: Oh, and forgot, it was the first to use fly-by-wire, which wasn't repeated until the Concorde (and then F-16)

 

I guess you could call it an FBW insofar as disconnecting the pilot from the controls goes, but it had the same type of hydro-mechanical augmentation system than an A-10 uses. There was no FBW as we know it today - not even close. So not close it isn't even worth mentioning.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GGTharos, I do not doubt your knowledge, infact, I kinda stalk you because I enjoy your posts. I just find it impressive the level of knowledge you've possessed across different fields.

 

Do you read a lot or are you Mr. Trebek the father of facts? :D

ED have been taking my money since 1995. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's plenty of hype. The Iroquois engines weren't fitted to any of the aircraft that actually flew, ever.m It is also an engine rated at 25000lbf, not 30000 - that was 'reported' thrust, whatever that meant, and even so it was similar in TWR to engines that came around at the same time - 5:1, where the USAF had a 4:1 requirement, IIRC.

 

By comparison, much later engines such as the F-15's are 8:1 TWR engines, despite having 'the same thrust'.

 

The Iroquois was advanced for it's time, but we're talking about a pretty short time-frame. It wasn't magical.

 

No side-looking radar was used, and most of the air to air armament development was canceled. The bay was a must for high altitude and high speed travel, and isn't anything new or strange.

 

 

 

I guess you could call it an FBW insofar as disconnecting the pilot from the controls goes, but it had the same type of hydro-mechanical augmentation system than an A-10 uses. There was no FBW as we know it today - not even close. So not close it isn't even worth mentioning.

 

The Iroquois engine was fitted to a B-47 Stratojet for testing, actually, in the air. It was also tested to a simulated Mach 2.3 @ 70,000ft.

 

If the bay wasn't anything new or strange, why did you doubt its existence when I first mentioned it?

 

As for the FBW, what the hell kind of documentary was I watching then? I thought the wings were simply too thin for any kind of standard system, and instead had inputs of the stick transferred to the control surfaces by electric currents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the side-radar and missile bays was more a reflection on how dubiously useful such features were.

 

An impressive aircraft, sure, but I think you're making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. Pure fly-by-wire is really just a method of control, not some sort of special performance upgrade. Just about every aircraft made since the Korean war had some sort of stability / control augmentation system and thus a sort of 'fly by wire', even if it still involved manual linkages.

 

I thought the wings were simply too thin for any kind of standard system, and instead had inputs of the stick transferred to the control surfaces by electric currents.

 

Seeing as how they fit most of a landing gear and the servoactuators themselves in the wing, I'm guessing no.

 

I don't think this would also make the best choice for a DCS aircraft. Though I have to say, holy shit that thing is a monstrosity. It's like if an F-4 and an F-111 had a freakishly huge baby.


Edited by Frostiken

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GGTharos, I do not doubt your knowledge, infact, I kinda stalk you because I enjoy your posts.

 

:shocking::censored::helpsmilie:

 

I just find it impressive the level of knowledge you've possessed across different fields.

 

Do you read a lot or are you Mr. Trebek the father of facts? :D

 

I um ... read. A lot. Let's leave it at that. :D

 

:beer:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iroquois engine was fitted to a B-47 Stratojet for testing, actually, in the air.

 

And subsequently scrapped.

 

It was also tested to a simulated Mach 2.3 @ 70,000ft.
Yes. It was also tested for some 7000h. In the end it was scrapped.

 

If the bay wasn't anything new or strange, why did you doubt its existence when I first mentioned it?
Brain fart :) It wasn't the first nor last aircraft with a missile bay.

 

As for the FBW, what the hell kind of documentary was I watching then? I thought the wings were simply too thin for any kind of standard system, and instead had inputs of the stick transferred to the control surfaces by electric currents.
Documentaries don't have time to explain everything in detail, and they gladly hype stuff up. They're nice to watch, you'll learn a thing or two, but realize that further research is 'exercise for the viewer'.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying the Arrow would have had no comparable competitors is a bit disingenous. The F-108 would have been analogous, but was also cancelled; the YF-12 was in development at about the same time, and would have (if it, too, had not been cancelled) entered service very shortly after. The YF-12 had virtually identical projected performace, and unlike the Arrow, YF-12 actually demonstrated mach 3+ performance, to include successful target engagements.

 

It's also kind of disingenous to say Arrow was cancelled purely under US pressure: the US cancelled their OWN high-performance interceptors at the same time, and for the same reasons: the technology of the time didn't support economically feasible large-scale deployment, and bomber formations simply were no longer the prime threat; ballistic missiles were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a brighter, less argumentative note, Shark Week is going strong ;)

 

And the Hog is kinda like a shark. Circles patiently, picking out a target, dives in, hits it and gets out to circle again :P

Live every week like it's Shark Week. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going cold war we either get the Hunter (just for the looks) or the EE Lightning. That was a seriously high performance aircraft for the time.

 

There are so many awesome Cold War a/c that if anyone created a semi realistic sim based on them, slightly better than FC2 but no where near the complexity of DCS, I would purchase it in a heartbeat. Those are by far my most favorite of air craft. They were so experimental. Now all aircraft are starting to look the same. EF is one style, then the F22 shape is the other. Not many other Gen 4.5+ shapes in the air. I hope Jet thunder can maybe fulfill my dreams of a sim with planes from that era.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Aaron

i7 2600k@4.4ghz, GTX1060-6gb, 16gb DDR3, T16000m, Track IR5

 

BS2-A10C-UH1-FC3-M2000-F18C-A4E-F14B-BF109

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All aircraft will still look the same if there's 'nowhere near the complexity of DCS'. That's pretty much a no-brainer. Operating them will 'feel' the same, just like in FC2.

 

The only reason you 'love' those cold war planes is because you don't have to live through the nightmare of operating them ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All aircraft will still look the same if there's 'nowhere near the complexity of DCS'. That's pretty much a no-brainer. Operating them will 'feel' the same, just like in FC2.

 

The only reason you 'love' those cold war planes is because you don't have to live through the nightmare of operating them ;)

 

It's gotta be better than the nightmare of having nothing but .30 or .50 machine guns, and replaying the same old boring WWII battles for the 2,039,766th time.

 

There's never been a good Vietnam sim.... though the early AIM-9s, AIM-4s, and AIM-7s could be quite annoying to use, especially if you have one of the gun-less F-4s.

Intelligent discourse can only begin with the honest admission of your own fallibility.

Member of the Virtual Tactical Air Group: http://vtacticalairgroup.com/

Lua scripts and mods:

MIssion Scripting Tools (Mist): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98616

Slmod version 7.0 for DCS: World: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80979

Now includes remote server administration tools for kicking, banning, loading missions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Falklands would be the perfect theater to try, unfortunately Jet Thunder already has that covered. It hasn't been done (to my knowledge), it was (relatively!) balanced in terms of skill/power of the 2 forces, and the aircraft are something new and interesting. Modern enough to have a learning curve, ancient enough for some close-in action.

 

Call me crazy, but a blasting away Skyhawks with twin 30mm cannons in a Sea Harrier? Going heater-only with a Mirage? Replicating Black Buck missions in the Vulcan? Landing vertical in a storm in my Gr3? Hot. Ness.

 

If Jet Thunder never gets finished, you guys oughta goferit ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gotta be better than the nightmare of having nothing but .30 or .50 machine guns, and replaying the same old boring WWII battles for the 2,039,766th time.

 

Amen to that. WW2 flight sims are probably more insipid and boring than WW2 FPS games.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was balanced about the Falklands? The Argentinian fighters quite literally had no fuel to dogfight with. If they got into two turns they'd not make it home. In fact, the one that did get into a fight instead of flying on course and speed, didn't have enough fuel to make it back.

 

Would you like to fly the 400nm to the maldivas in your mirage, knowing that if you mix it up you're not coming back?

 

I call you Crazy.

 

F-15 is the way to go ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was balanced about the Falklands? The Argentinian fighters quite literally had no fuel to dogfight with. If they got into two turns they'd not make it home. In fact, the one that did get into a fight instead of flying on course and speed, didn't have enough fuel to make it back.

 

Would you like to fly the 400nm to the maldivas in your mirage, knowing that if you mix it up you're not coming back?

 

I call you Crazy.

 

F-15 is the way to go ;)

 

Britain vs. Argentina = unbalanced

USA vs. Iraq = lolwut?

Half the world vs. Half of Libya = lmao

 

Eagle? Naw. Mudhen? Please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The air war over the malvinas was not just "unbalanced", it was a fight where one side had liberty to operate their aircraft as it wished, while the other side simply could not engage in A2A. "Unbalanced" is when one side has a 2 to 1 numerical advantage or something, what the Argentinian Mirages were experiencing was such that they might as well have been flying without weapons. :P

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're yacking about engaging in A2A and no Eagle? I'll have it any time over a Harrier or just about anything else used in the Falklands. Hm, makes that more or less over anything else.

 

Mudhen's fine, just make a not a pound for air to ground conversion and ... ;)

 

Eagle? Naw. Mudhen? Please!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The air war over the malvinas was not just "unbalanced", it was a fight where one side had liberty to operate their aircraft as it wished, while the other side simply could not engage in A2A. "Unbalanced" is when one side has a 2 to 1 numerical advantage or something, what the Argentinian Mirages were experiencing was such that they might as well have been flying without weapons. :P

 

So what if I have no ability to use missiles? I don't think there is any regulation against opening the cockpit, and throwing rocks at the enemies intakes :music_whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain vs. Argentina = unbalanced

USA vs. Iraq = lolwut?

Half the world vs. Half of Libya = lmao

 

Eagle? Naw. Mudhen? Please!

 

What are you getting at? Look at the history of air warfare since the Korean war and tell me that any of them were really balanced. There were some good dogfights from Vietnam but for the most part the US maintained control of the air through most of the conflict. The only real air engagements that occurred that I can recall that could have any basis in air-to-air combat in reality would be the Six-Day War and... the Lebanon War of 1982? Even still the Israelis had superior training, equipment, and intelligence and completely rocked the shit out of their adversaries so it's hard to call those balanced either.

 

There's a reason modern flight sims don't bother trying to recreate real conflicts.

 

Mudhen's fine, just make a not a pound for air to ground conversion and ... wink.gif

 

We talked with ops (briefly) about the possibility of flying the F-15Es without conformals... we have all the TOs for it, but we probably don't have any of the equipment to plug the drains and panel it all back up. I highly doubt you'd ever see an F-15E without the CFTs, but it's possible, and an F-15E without CFTs is still, at its heart, the best air superiority fighter ever made... with a spectator!

 

If ED does do F-15E it should be an option to remove the pods and CFTs. It may not really be a serious option, but rather for better flight characteristics for air engagements, such that for multiplayer, you're somewhat getting two different aircraft for the price of one - one is a highly competent bomber with modest air attack abilities, and the other is a highly competent fighter with modest ground attack abilities.


Edited by Frostiken

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, ED should already announce the next aircraft ;D

Really, I'm dying to know what it is.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

CM HAF-X | Corsair HX1000i | ASUS P8P67Pro | Intel Core i7 2600 @ 4.0GHz | Corsair CWCH70 | G.Skill 8GB DDR3 1600MHz | ASUS GeForce GTX 970 4GB | Plextor M5Pro 256GB | WD Caviar Black 1TB * 2 RAID 0 | WD Caviar Green 2TB | Windows 10 Professional X64 | TM HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...